cmw_meas_set_frequency

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether this is a configuration change, whether it triggers a measurement, or if it requires an established connection. No side effects or state changes are disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simple purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and two undocumented optional parameters. The description fails to explain the role of host/port, whether a connection is required, or how this setting fits into the broader measurement workflow. It is too sparse for an agent to use it confidently without additional context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (only frequency_hz is described). The description adds no meaning for host and port parameters, which are left completely undocumented. It merely repeats the 'Hz' unit already present in the schema for frequency_hz.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('GPRF analyzer measurement frequency') with units ('Hz'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cmw_gen_set_frequency by specifying the analyzer measurement context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and sibling list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.